How does evolution explain the gaps?

Okay, it's up to you. I thought focusing on a single "gap" might make clear the fallacy under which you're operating. Since you don't want to choose one, I will. How about the one about the theoretical constants of our universe being just right for life? Change any one of them by the scantest amount and life couldn't exist.How is this an argument against evolution? It isn't even biology, it's physics. And it applies equally to all sciences. Change any of these constants and physics and chemistry would no longer work, and our universe as we know couldn't even exist.So why don't we focus on something closer to the Creation/Evolution discussion? It really isn't possible to argue against your general assertion of "the gaps invalidate the mega-ToE model". Pick a gap related to evolution so we can understand what you're getting at.--Percy

Actually I've been getting the feeling that we have different conceptions of what constitutes a "gap", and I was hoping for clarification by way of example. I don't, so it sounds like we agree. I was just offering one item from the list you provided in Message 22 in the Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ? thread. As I suspected, we're talking about different types of gaps. The type of gap you mention here is without significance relative to the validity of evolutionary theory. It's a scientific/historical issue whose answer is a function of availability of evidence, of which there is very little.Questioning evolutionary theory because we're unable to piece together the evolutionary history of the arch of the foot would be like questioning the laws of physics because we can't figure out the origin of a newly discovered comet. Both of these questions are unanswerable due to lack of information about very specific situations, and not to any theoretical lack.--Percy

I think you first have to explain how your challenge is meaningful. You could as easily have written this challenge: Or this one: Your challenge is just as invalid as these.We don't know everything and never will. Where the evidence is gone there is nothing that can be done to bring it back. Principles and theories are derived from existing evidence. To some extent those principles and theories can be used to reconstruct histories for situations where evidence is inadequate or absent.That there are some things we can never know because the evidence no longer exists is just something we have to accept, but the strength of a theory is a function of its evidentiary support, and not of how much other evidence might have been destroyed or made in some way unavailable.--Percy